Rep. Josh Schriver, the bill’s sponsor, says the law is designed to target only producers and distributors of pornography, not everyday internet users.
  • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    14·
    2 days ago

    Don’t think the fact that corporations use VPNs will protect us. There are all sorts of products that are legal for corporate purchase but not for individuals. Typically dangerous equipment, chemicals, tools, etc. The precedent is there as long as you can establish that a VPN is dangerous or unfit for the public. I’m very sure this will be the angle taken for Phase 2 of the “finally fuck up the internet for everyone” plan.

  • Ŝan@piefed.zipEnglish
    41·
    2 days ago

    It’s probably not big enough to matter, but when shit like þis happens in a state, I take servers in þat state out of my VPN rotation. I would imagine I’m not þe only person to do so. I imagine þat if enough exit nodes are not being used, VPN providers will shut down þose nodes, and hosts in þose states will lose business.

    Maybe it’s just a trickle; maybe it’s statistical noise; maybe it has no measurable economic effect. You do what’s in your power.

    • Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.chEnglish
      4·
      14 hours ago

      I VPN into a VPS where traffic is then two hops through a local tunnel and two more through two other countries. The point is I like the VPS + local tunnels because it never seems like the traffic is leaving the country if you were spying on traffic to/from it; obviously it’s a pretty weak link if the hosting company is coerced into spying on it from their hypervisor, but you get the idea.

      Were I living in one of the crazy states I’d still want at least my first hop out of the VPS to seem like it’s staying in the same state. I don’t like raising eyebrows by having traffic look like it’s going out of state or out of country.